Joanna Brooks Railing Against The Church. Again.

[sheilauk]

I found an answer.

This article says that under President McKay there were changes made including:

- black members could be baptised for the dead in the temple.

- they could serve in auxiliary callings.

Before Pres McKay they apparently couldn't even hold a calling (whether it needed priesthood or not).

Source:

http://dialoguejourn..._V35N01_157.pdf

Thank you for going to this trouble. Gives one pause that they were banned from serving in areas where the priesthood wasn't required...

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I remember reading something from Joseph Fielding Smith, wherein he said there are many unpublished revelations given to the Church Presidents, kept in a vault. He said that in his post as church historian he was given permission to have access to these revelations and testified there was much more going on by way of revelation, behind the scenes, than the members of the Church at large realized.

I'd love to have a source for this if you have it.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

And the folk doctrines -- which purport to give explanations that God Himself has not provided -- are contrary to the present revelation.

I can't see how you can say this. We have official (*signed by entire first presidency*) letters outlining the basis for the ban. OD-2 just says that prayers have been answered and black people of african descent can now get the priesthood. Given that the doctrine of pre-existence unworthiness was outlined officially as doctrine and given that I'm aware of no official revelation that says otherwise its no wonder that the "folk doctrine" persists. I understand that we have a press release from the church saying we don't know. I know that Elder Holland said in his PBS interview that we didn't know, and shouldn't give reasons because we don't know.

I am unaware of any statement (official or otherwise) that says the folk doctrine is wrong (Elder Holland came closest in saying that " I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong" Note he didn't say that they were wrong and made sure to say it was his opinion).

So please tell me what "present revelation" are the folk doctrines in conflict with? Especially if they are not stated as fact but as a possible reason.

Folk doctrines are highly persistent. It is naive to think a single public statement will dispel them. And Elder McConkie's statement was not all that public. It was given to an in-house group, as I recall, CES educators or some such gathering.

As already pointed out, Elder McConkie continued to print (in his revised 1979 version of Mormon Doctrine) the "folk doctrine." You are taking his quote out of context.

Edited May 8, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[canard78]

Now I get ya!

I remember reading something from Joseph Fielding Smith, wherein he said there are many unpublished revelations given to the Church Presidents, kept in a vault. He said that in his post as church historian he was given permission to have access to these revelations and testified there was much more going on by way of revelation, behind the scenes, than the members of the Church at large realized. Perhaps someday we'll learn there were actual "words" given in the revelation lifting the ban that are as yet unpublished to the world. Time will tell...

My main point in engaging in dialogue on this thread has been to try to get the folks who are angry and mortified by the priesthood ban to take a deep breath, then take a step or two back to consider the possibility that for some wise purpose in the Lord the members of the Church -- most especially its black members -- have been given an Abrahamic test by the Lord; a test to see if we will trust in him and in his living prophets enough to reserve judgement on a controversial issue, like this one, until all the facts are revealed.

Jumping to conclusions that the priesthood ban was an inherently racist policy, perpetrated by "bigoted" 19th century Church leaders, and then getting chronically angry and insulted about it all could provide the adversary with a foot in the door into one's heart, making future disaffection and apostasy more likely. The fact that an extraordinarily powerful revelation was given -- regardless as to exactly how that revelation came -- to lift the ban at a specific day and time cogently argues that the Lord had his hand in this from the beginning. At the risk of appearing to be a nanny, my counsel is to trust in the Lord and his prophets and to not allow a destructive spring of bitterness to spout forth from within the heart. As the Lord said, "Be still, and know I am God."

Thanks. And you've done a good job of doing so. I appreciate that you may very well be right. I feel a little uncomfortable at the evidence to the contrary.

As for Abrahamic test for black members... If it is, then my honour to them. The fact that they even attended church when they couldn't even hold auxiliary callings (and perhaps not even give prayers given, at the time is was a priesthood function - until the late 70s - 78 I think), makes me feel real admiration for their patience.

I can't help but question whether it ever was needed at all.

[teddyaware]

Thanks. And you've done a good job of doing so. I appreciate that you may very well be right. I feel a little uncomfortable at the evidence to the contrary.

As for Abrahamic test for black members... If it is, then my honour to them. The fact that they even attended church when they couldn't even hold auxiliary callings (and perhaps not even give prayers given, at the time is was a priesthood function - until the late 70s - 78 I think), makes me feel real admiration for their patience.

I can't help but question whether it ever was needed at all.

... and I admire your strong sense of justice and fair play. If I ever got into some sort of legal trouble, but were truly innocent, I'd want someone like you out there defending me against the wolves and jackals.

[canard78]

... and I admire your strong sense of justice and fair play. If I ever got into some sort of legal trouble, but were truly innocent, I'd want someone like you out there defending me against the wolves and jackals.

You're very kind. I considered law for a while. But I'd have likely not really done well. I'm too easily goaded. No-one wants a hot head for a lawyer. I only survive on this board because I've learnt to reread, delete and retype what I've said.

By the way, I've been meaning to ask. Are you 'Ted Dyaware' or 'Teddy Aware?' I'm guessing the first, but I help but read it the second way. I've ages of a cuddly toy. An aware one.

[teddyaware]

You're very kind. I considered law for a while. But I'd have likely not really done well. I'm too easily goaded. No-one wants a hot head for a lawyer. I only survive on this board because I've learnt to reread, delete and retype what I've said.

By the way, I've been meaning to ask. Are you 'Ted Dyaware' or 'Teddy Aware?' I'm guessing the first, but I help but read it the second way. I've ages of a cuddly toy. An aware one.

Teddy Aware. But I used to be quite a legendary hothead as well. So I could flatter myself by saying Ted Dy(namic) or Ted Dy(nomite) might apply as well. LOL!

All the best, Ted

Edited May 8, 2013 by teddyaware

[cinepro]

Racism was ingrained in the culture. All were infected by it through culture and history.

I've always found such comments mystifying. Lots of terrible things are "ingrained in the culture" (acceptance of fornication, double pierced ears, etc.) , and the whole point of the Prophets and revelation is that they tell us not to do the bad things that are "ingrained in the culture".

Even though it was so ingrained, God and His Church leaders could have tried a little harder to get the word out.

[canard78]

I've always found such comments mystifying. Lots of terrible things are "ingrained in the culture" (acceptance of fornication, double pierced ears, etc.) , and the whole point of the Prophets and revelation is that they tell us not to do the bad things that are "ingrained in the culture".

Even though it was so ingrained, God and His Church leaders could have tried a little harder to get the word out.

Unfortunately some of the church leaders were not even willing to ask the question.

[Calm]

(and perhaps not even give prayers given, at the time is was a priesthood function - until the late 70s - 78 I think)

1870? Because as a member**** since the 1950s and an aware member since about 64 (when I would have likely been old enough to have started to pay attention to such things), I remember having given prayers myself and I certainly wasn't a priesthood holder in 64.

Come to think of it, I wouldn't have been a member, but a child of record.

Edited May 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

1870? Because as a member**** since the 1950s and an aware member since about 64 (when I would have likely been old enough to have started to pay attention to such things), I remember having given prayers myself and I certainly wasn't a priesthood holder in 64.

Come to think of it, I wouldn't have been a member, but a child of record.

Sorry, I meant pray in sacrament meeting. I was under the impression that was only the priesthood until 1978.

[Calm]

Sorry, I meant pray in sacrament meeting. I was under the impression that was only the priesthood until 1978.

My memory says it was allowed before that, but there was a short time period where only a PH holder could either open or close the meeting (can't remember which). There was a letter sent out from SLC that was a year or so later rescinded by another letter from the same.

However, the tradition for some reason continues to be perpetuated in pockets here and there including by some significant leaders who present it as an unwritten rule, but a rule nonetheless...which makes no sense unless they are claiming that the Handbook is promoting the wrong rules.

(have to admit this is a minor pet peeve of mine...not the teaching, but the inconsistency among leaders...I really wish all leaders worked harder to get on the same page and stick to it...save when inspired to get off of it for individual exceptions)

[canard78]

My memory says it was allowed before that, but there was a short time period where only a PH holder could either open or close the meeting (can't remember which). There was a letter sent out from SLC that was a year or so later rescinded by another letter from the same.

However, the tradition for some reason continues to be perpetuated in pockets here and there including by some significant leaders who present it as an unwritten rule, but a rule nonetheless...which makes no sense unless they are claiming that the Handbook is promoting the wrong rules.

(have to admit this is a minor pet peeve of mine...not the teaching, but the inconsistency among leaders...I really wish all leaders worked harder to get on the same page and stick to it...save when inspired to get off of it for individual exceptions)

Permission for women to pray in sacrament was granted in1978:

“The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve have determined that there is no scriptural prohibition against sisters offering prayers in sacrament meetings. It was therefore decided that it is permissible for sisters to offer prayers in any meetings they attend, including sacrament meetings, Sunday School meetings, and stake conferences. Relief Society visiting teachers may offer prayers in homes that they enter in fulfilling visiting teaching assignments.”

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/11/news-of-the-church?lang=eng

This replaced the policy that had been in place for a while that only priesthood holders could pray in sacrament. By 1978, when women could too, Black men already had the priesthood so would have been able to pray for about 5 months before the sisters could.

1967- July- The “Priesthood Bulletin”, a church-wide newsletter for priesthood leadership, prohibits women from praying in sacrament meeting. (“Mormon Hierarchy-Extensions of Power”, By D. Michael Quinn)

1968- General Handbook of Instructions, pp 44- “Prayers in Church Meetings Prayers in all Church meetings should be brief, simple, and given as led by the spirit by the one who is voice. Their content should pertain to the particular matter at hand. Brethren holding the Melchizedek or Aaronic Priesthood should offer the prayers in sacrament meetings, including fast and testimony meetings. Those praying should use the pronoun forms of Thy, Thee, Thine, Thou in addressing the Lord.”

1975- June- Ensign, “News of the Church”- “Prayers in Sacrament and Priesthood Meetings: Attention is called to the following instruction which appeared in the July-August 1967 Priesthood Bulletin. The First Presidency recommends that only those who bear the Melchizedek Priesthood or Aaronic Priesthood be invited to offer the opening and closing prayers in sacrament meetings, including fast meetings. This also applies to priesthood meetings.” https://www.lds.org/ensign/1975/08/news-of-the-church?lang=eng

And as for pet peeves... The insistence on "thee/thine" out of reasons of respect and reverence. The pronoun "thee" is a personal one, not a deference one. It's like the French 'tu' versus 'vous.'

It's correct to say 'thee' for first person familiar conversation with God about 200 years ago. Given we now use 'you' in our most personal relationships, we should do the same in prayer.

Anyway - not to worry.

[Calm]

And as for pet peeves... The insistence on "thee/thine" out of reasons of respect and reverence. The pronoun "thee" is a personal one, not a deference one. It's like the French 'tu' versus 'vous.'

It's correct to say 'thee' for first person familiar conversation with God about 200 years ago. Given we now use 'you' in our most personal relationships, we should do the same in prayer.

I actually like the "thee" and "thou" because of its personal nature...but most people don't view them as personal (I do because of my Spanish classes) so I can understand the problem with them actually putting distance between God and man that wasn't originally intended and might not be all that wise at this point. Edited May 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

I actually like the "thee" and "thou" because of its personal nature...but most people don't view them as personal (I do because of my Spanish classes) so I can understand the problem with them actually putting distance between God and man that wasn't originally intended and might not be all that wise at this point.

The problem's compounded somewhat by needing to then use awkward phrasing like "we ask thee that though wouldst..." Wouldst? And some people get it mixed up. "...that thou wouldeth..."

Anyway... It's a minor thing these days. I'm far too busy trying to reconcile 33 wives and LDS silence on the matter

[Robert F. Smith]

I've always found such comments mystifying. Lots of terrible things are "ingrained in the culture" (acceptance of fornication, double pierced ears, etc.) , and the whole point of the Prophets and revelation is that they tell us not to do the bad things that are "ingrained in the culture".

Even though it was so ingrained, God and His Church leaders could have tried a little harder to get the word out.

I have been very gratified by the positive response of the great body of the Saints to the 1978 Declaration. Last Sunday, during fast & testimony mtg two middle-aged African-American sisters visiting our Provo ward from Brooklyn bore their testimonies. Though they had been members for a long time, they had never been to Utah before. It was wonderful, but it was all I could do to keep from boohooing. The tears of joy would just not stop coming. I have been entranced by stories from missionaries young and old who have returned from service in Africa. The love is palpable. Yet who would have guessed at this only half-a-century ago?

[why me]

I have been very gratified by the positive response of the great body of the Saints to the 1978 Declaration. Last Sunday, during fast & testimony mtg two middle-aged African-American sisters visiting our Provo ward from Brooklyn bore their testimonies. Though they had been members for a long time, they had never been to Utah before. It was wonderful, but it was all I could do to keep from boohooing. The tears of joy would just not stop coming. I have been entranced by stories from missionaries young and old who have returned from service in Africa. The love is palpable.

And this is what is important, the here and now. But, the africans who were church members before the ban was lifted also had strong testimonies and they were not prevented from giving their testimonies. And there were also tears of joy. However, critics never want to look into the testimonies of african members before the ban. Critics get caught up in the semantics and in point scoring.

[why me]

The love is palpable. Yet who would have guessed at this only half-a-century ago?

A half a century ago, those africans who were members also had a testimony of the gospel and they were not concerned to show their joy. They did show their joy and love for the gospel. Edited May 9, 2013 by why me

[canard78]

A half a century ago, those africans who were members also had a testimony of the gospel and they were not concerned to show their joy. They did show their joy and love for the gospel.

A half century or so ago those black members you speak of could not do the following:

- Hold auxiliary callings

- Give prayers in sacrament meeting

- Be baptised for the dead at the temple

- Receive their own endowment or go through for their past dead

- Be sealed to their spouse and children in the temple

- Serve a mission

- Hold the priesthood

Earlier you said you see 'no segregation.' I'm delighted that the charity of individual members meant they were generally extended warm welcomes. But they were still treated like second class saints by the church until first President McKay and then President Kimball's persistence brought about changes.

But I also join you in admiring the resilience of those black members pre 1960s and 70s who could still feel fulfilled as church members.

[cdowis]

Permission for women to pray in sacrament was granted in1978:

This replaced the policy that had been in place for a while that only priesthood holders could pray in sacrament. By 1978, when women could too, Black men already had the priesthood so would have been able to pray for about 5 months before the sisters could.

And as for pet peeves... The insistence on "thee/thine" out of reasons of respect and reverence. The pronoun "thee" is a personal one, not a deference one.

You are mistaken. It is not only the personal form, but also "Biblical language".

It's like the French 'tu' versus 'vous.'

Many languages use the personal form in the Bible.

It's correct to say 'thee' for first person familiar conversation with God about 200 years ago. Given we now use 'you' in our most personal relationships, we should do the same in prayer.

We are taught to address God with deference using Biblical language rather than the venacular for the same reason we go to church with our best Sunday clothes. The Sacrament Prayer is the model for our prayers.

Just curious, do you wear blue jeans and flip flops to church?

Anyway - not to worry.

[why me]

Earlier you said you see 'no segregation.' I'm delighted that the charity of individual members meant they were generally extended warm welcomes. But they were still treated like second class saints by the church until first President McKay and then President Kimball's persistence brought about changes.

But I also join you in admiring the resilience of those black members pre 1960s and 70s who could still feel fulfilled as church members.

Were you around back then? I think that you may not have been born yet. If you were a member during that time, lets say in the 70's before the ban was lifted,you would have seen what I saw. I saw black members treated like equals and a general concern for their welfare. In my former ward, there was also a mixed marriage. No problem at all. Most of the members had understanding of their situation and perhaps even loved them more for their faith and resilence. What I see as a problem today is the younger generation lacking the knowledge of what it was like then for the white and african members. Edited May 9, 2013 by why me

[Tacenda]

Were you around back then? I think that you may not have been born yet. If you were a member during that time, lets say in the 70's before the ban was lifted,you would have seen what I saw. I saw black members treated like equals and a general concern for their welfare. In my former ward, there was also a mixed marriage. No problem at all. Most of the members had understanding of their situation and perhaps even loved them more for their faith and resilence. What I see as a problem today is the younger generation lacking the knowledge of what it was like then for the white and african members.

I'll never forget that day in 1978, I was around 16 yrs. old and coming back from lunch in the summertime to go to work and heard it over the radio. Didn't Elvis Presley also die that day? One of those things you'll never forget, also maybe for those that are older, the day Kennedy was shot. Or the day they flew planes into the Twin Towers.

[thesometimesaint]

I'll never forget that day in 1978, I was around 16 yrs. old and coming back from lunch in the summertime to go to work and heard it over the radio. Didn't Elvis Presley also die that day? One of those things you'll never forget, also maybe for those that are older, the day Kennedy was shot. Or the day they flew planes into the Twin Towers.

I must be getting old. My first real memories of events outside my family neighborhood was watching Sputnik fly in the night sky.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Were you around back then? I think that you may not have been born yet. If you were a member during that time, lets say in the 70's before the ban was lifted,you would have seen what I saw. I saw black members treated like equals and a general concern for their welfare. In my former ward, there was also a mixed marriage. No problem at all. Most of the members had understanding of their situation and perhaps even loved them more for their faith and resilence. What I see as a problem today is the younger generation lacking the knowledge of what it was like then for the white and african members.

Which is fine as far as things go. This is where the country as a whole was in the 70's. Its hardly remarkable that members of the church were in the same position. At no point in the process were we as a church out in front of society in how we treated blacks (unless you go way back to Joseph Smith's day). And that is kind of sad for the Lord's church. In the words of Elder Holland: "imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it."

[why me]

Which is fine as far as things go. This is where the country as a whole was in the 70's. Its hardly remarkable that members of the church were in the same position. At no point in the process were we as a church out in front of society in how we treated blacks (unless you go way back to Joseph Smith's day).

How old were you in the seventies? Actually, America was in All in the Family mode.That show brought a mirror into everyone's living room. America was far from accepting african amercians as equals back in the 70's. And even into the 80's, it was hard going for black americans. 1978 was just 10 years after the race riots...still felt by many white americans in those states where such riots happened far into the 70's and 80's. Edited May 9, 2013 by why me